OFFICERS’ REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 14 JULY 2011

OFFICERS’ REPORT TO

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 14 JULY 2011

Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION

1. WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1270 - Installation of buried electrical cable system in connection with off-shore wind farm; Land from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd

Major Development

Target Date: 09 April 2010

Case Officer: Miss J Medler

Full Planning Permission

CONSTRAINTS

Wensum Valley Project Area

County Wildlife Site

Countryside

Gas Pipe Buffer Zone

Archaeological Site

Special Area of Conservation

Conservation Area

Historic Park and Gardens

Contaminated Land

Site of Special Scientific Interest

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Undeveloped Coast

Landfill Gas Site

Flood Zone 3

Flood Zone 2

THE APPLICATION

Is for the construction of an underground cable system from Weybourne to Great

Ryburgh, part of a larger project routing the cable to Little Dunham in Breckland

District. The underground cable system would connect the proposed Dudgeon

Offshore Wind Farm to the national electricity distribution network.

The total distance of the cable route through both Districts is 45km. However, the length of the cable route for consideration in North Norfolk is 27.7km from Weybourne to Gt Ryburgh, passing through the parishes of Weybourne, Kelling, Salthouse, Cley,

Letheringsett with Glandford, Field Dalling, Brinton, Thornage, Gunthorpe,

Hindringham, Thursford, Fulmodeston, Stibbard and Gt Ryburgh.

The application is supported by an Environmental Statement (ES) in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 1999, a copy of which is available in the Members’ Room. The Statement covers the following issues relating to the proposed development: Non Technical Summary; introduction/background; need for the project; project details; site selection and consideration of alternatives; legislative requirements and the EIA process; policy framework and guidance; nature

Development Committee

1

14 July 2011

conservation and ecology; archaeology; land quality and water resources; landscape and visual impact assessment; traffic and access; noise and vibration; dust and air quality; local community, land use, tourism and recreation; summary.

As explained in Section 1 of the ES the cable system would potentially be built in two stages. Stage 1 would comprise the cable system that would be required in relation to the Offshore Wind Farm application currently being considered by the Department for

Energy and Climate Change (DECC). That is seeking consent to construct and operate the Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm with an output of up to 560MW. Stage 2 would comprise the cable system that would be required to service an additional offshore wind farm project next to Dudgeon. Proposals have been initiated for these further offshore works and will be subject to a further application to the DECC. This could increase the output in the Dudgeon area up to a maximum of 1,400MW.

The application has been submitted on the basis that the electricity generated by the offshore wind farm will be transmitted through the underground cables to the point of connection to the grid by an alternating current (AC). The voltage of the cable system would be dependent upon the final design, but would be at Extra High Voltage (EHV) levels (i.e. 120kV or above).

As explained in Section 3 of the ES, up to four trenches would be proposed for the entire length of the route if both Stages 1 and 2 were to proceed. If only Stage 1 were to proceed there would be up to two trenches. The working corridor within which all works would take place would be 40m wide, regardless of whether only one or both stages go ahead. This is because of the trench widths required, the distances required between the trenches, and the requirement for vehicular access, sub-soil storage and topsoil storage. However, in certain locations the working corridor width may need to be reduced to 20m for environmental reasons.

The electrical cable system would comprise the following components:

•

A buried cable system, approximately 45km in length, consisting of up to 8 circuits

(AC system) which would require up to 4 trenches each containing 6 power cables (up to 24 power cables in total) if both Stages of the onshore electrical connection are developed.

•

If only Stage 1 is developed the buried cable system would consist of up to 4 circuits (AC system) which would require up to 2 trenches each containing 6 power cables (up to 12 power cables in total)

•

Fibre optic communication cables (one per circuit).

•

Earth continuity cables (one per circuit).

•

Cable joint bays.

•

Cross bonding pits and/or cross bonding pillars.

Whilst the application has been submitted on the basis of an AC connection, with plans indicating the location of cable joint bays and cross bonding locations, it is possible that a DC (direct current) connection could be used. This has been assessed in the ES. If a DC connection were to be used cross bonding pits or pillars would not be required. The buried cable system would then consist of up to 4 circuits in four trenches if both Stages of the onshore electrical connection are developed. Each circuit would consist of 2 cables in each trench along with one fibre optic cable per circuit for communication (8 power cables in total). If only Stage 1 is developed (DC system) the buried cable system would consist of up to 2 circuits in 2 trenches, 2 cables in each trench (4 power cables in total).


2

14 July 2011

The applicants are also yet to establish whether the cables would be ducted or buried directly, but if the DC connection is used they would be buried apart from under the highways where they would be ducted, for technical reasons.

Amended plans and supporting documentation were submitted on 21 April 2010. Readvertisement and re-consultation took place upon these amended details in May

2010 in relation to the following:

1. A large number of changes to the detailed cable route alignment to: a) reduce disruption to agricultural practices; b) reduce impacts on drainage systems; or c) for site access reasons

2. Alterations to the alignment and length of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) locations (land at Kelling Estate, Bayfield including at River Glaven, A148 at

Thursford and River Wensum at Great Ryburgh).

3. The removal of an HDD location (disused railway south of the River Wensum).

4. The addition of a new HDD location (land at Kettlestone, containing tributaries to the River Wensum).

5. Revisions to the main and satellite construction compound locations (sites at

Weybourne, Field Dalling and Ryburgh).

6. Revisions to the location of a number of cable jointing bays, cross bonding pits/pillars.

7. Inclusion of number of areas where the working cable corridor width would be reduced to 20m to minimise impacts on hedgerows, individual trees, archaeological sites and a watercourse (land at Kelling Estate, River Stiffkey, Brinton, Hindringham and Gunthorpe).

The applicants have submitted further information relating to the potential impact of the scheme on soil conditions along the length of the route. The Council has instructed its own Soil Consultant to assess the submitted information and reconsultation with all Parish Councils and relevant consultees took place on 28

February 2011. This information was also re-advertised along the cable route in North

Norfolk by way of site notices posted on 3 March 2011.

With regard to the timing of the proposed development the applicants have confirmed that the Offshore consent from the DECC is expected later in 2011. This would allow

Stage 1 of buried cable route to be developed under the current programme which now envisages onshore cable construction work taking place mainly during 2013 and

2014 with some work in early 2015. This is later than envisaged due to the delays in the original programme for both offshore and onshore consents. The timing of Stage

2 is still uncertain, but given the current delays to Stage 1 it is still possible that the offshore programme would be a continuation from the Stage 1 works, in which case the applicants have confirmed that they would try to carry out as much of the onshore works as practicable for Stage 2 in parallel with the Stage 1 works. Discussions with

The Crown Estate are continuing. Should the two stages not overlap the applicants have confirmed that they will, as matter of practice, liaise with each landowner and agree on a programme for either full or partial reinstatement to meet their specific site requirements. In the event of a gap of more than 12 months arising between the completion of Stage 1 works and the commencement of the Stage 2 works then the


3

14 July 2011

applicants will undertake a full reinstatement programme and will accept a planning condition to this effect. A copy of the applicants’ letter dated 8 th

April 2011 is contained in Appendix 1.

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.

PARISH COUNCILS

The comments below are on the amended plans unless stated otherwise.

Weybourne Parish Council - No objection

Awaiting comments in relation to soil impact

Kelling Parish Council - Comments on the original plans as follows:

1. We understand that the width of the trench will be in the region of some twenty to twenty five metres. This would obviously impact greatly on the countryside, and cause great concern.

2. We understand that the route is not yet finalised and this in itself would affect our discussion on this proposal.

3. We believe that the duration of the work could be some three to four years, which would be unacceptable.

4. It is proposed that twenty four hour working may be a possibility, which would cause disruption to locals and an increase in traffic flow.

5. We understand that the trench, when being excavated at the Beck that runs through the village, will simply pass through the Beck, which will of course cause flooding on both sides.

6. It is hoped that if the project should go ahead, then the standards employed would be as high as the present wind farm project, the Sheringham Shoal Farm.

Comments following re-consultation regarding soil impact:

Object. The Council is still concerned as to the environmental impact on the countryside through which the trench passes, bearing in mind the width of the trench and the length of time the project will take, and the length of time that reinstatement will take, not to mention the initial destruction of hedgerows etc. Remember also that the Parish of Kelling is a Conservation Area. The Council is also concerned that any impact on soil issues should consider that not all soils along the route are the same and that possibly any review should be on a field by field basis.

Salthouse Parish Council - No objection


No objection

Cley Parish Council - Comments on original plans.

No objection.


No comment. Not qualified to comment.

Letheringsett with Glandford Parish Council - Comments on original plans.

No objection.

No response to amended plans or re-consultation regarding soil impact.

Field Dalling Parish Council - Comments on original plans.

Support.

No response to amended plans or re-consultation regarding soil impact.

.


4

14 July 2011

Brinton Parish Council - No objection


No comment

Thornage Parish Council - No objection


No objection

Gunthorpe Parish Council - Object. The amendments we requested by letter dated

1st February have been completely ignored and I am instructed to repeat the request that cabling proposed to affect Bale is re-routed. Reference is in particular made to the route shown close to Folly Cottage, Common Lane, as it is thought that the line could quite easily be further north through a scrubby area without detriment to the environment. Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd, seem to be listening to landowners but ignoring residents of houses close to the route of the cabling. Just because the landowners have not asked for a route amendment in this case should not mean that no notice is taken of those representing the local residents. If there are any perceived technical or environmental constraints to our suggested route amendments please therefore inform this Council.

In response to the applicants letter dated 10 June 2010, which provides the reasons as to why it is not environmentally acceptable to alter the route at Bale, Gunthorpe

Parish Council have advised that "it does not seem from Dudgeons letter that our comments have been understood or appreciated about the scruffy part of Bale Wood.

No technical reasons have been given for not accepting the request to go through the scrubby area".


No change to objection to the proposed route affecting the village of Bale. Soil management is only a small part of our objection which is primarily to the enormous adverse impact the trenching operations will have in this Parish. We sincerely hope that your Council will not be minded to grant consent for the proposed scheme.

However, if it does we repeat the request for the cables to be laid further away from residential property, especially the one in Common Lane, Bale. As far as we know there are no technical or environmental constraints to our suggested route amendments and therefore we object to the comments made by Dudgeon Offshore

Wind Ltd in their letter to you dated 10 June 2010.

Hindringham Parish Council - No objection


No comment

Thursford Parish Council - No objection


Object

Fulmodeston Parish Council - Object. For the same reasons as stated previously, which are as follows:

Although this is a big project, there seems little communication between the company and landowners. The route seems to be undecided, and it seems to have an open timescale with little thought gone into the effect on farming practices and soils. There is a better route, we believe, along side of the old railway line. This is especially if a super grid cable along the East coast materialises.


5

14 July 2011


Object. Part of the soil report is wrong as some farming operations are deeper than indicated. Also what is the point of the cable if there is no sub station for it to go to at present?

Stibbard Parish Council - Object. It is detrimental to the landscape and has an adverse environmental impact.


Object. We consider that this proposal will adversely affect a landscape for many years and any such scheme should be done offshore. It is also of concern that the applicant is an agent for the project seeking only to make money by submitting the application and obtaining planning permission, without any care or concern for the damage of the countryside. We would be pleased if you could take note of our strong objection and the uncaring method by which this application is being presented to

North Norfolk District Council and seek to encourage the offshore option.

Ryburgh Parish Council - Object on the following grounds:

1. There is no provision for a footpath in Little Ryburgh.

2. The proposed cable runs close to the Little Ryburgh Cemetery and ruins.

3. The route cuts through the road into Great Ryburgh.


Object on the following grounds:

1. Adverse environmental impact

3. Destruction of agricultural land

4. Proposed site is too close to housing

5. Proposed site is too close to listed building in Little Ryburgh cemetery

6. Proposed route cuts through road at Great Ryburgh

7. Proposed route crosses the footpath in Little Ryburgh

8. Proposed development is of no benefit to local community

9. Health and Safety issues

Pudding Norton Parish Council - No comments received.

REPRESENTATIONS

Original Proposal

Twenty two letters of objection were received from local residents, landowners and tenants. Twelve of those are follow up letters received from five objectors in response to the applicants' comments on their earlier correspondence. The objections received are summarised as follows:

1. Will cause significant detrimental impact upon the landscape

2. Will cause significant detrimental impact/damage upon soil structure

3. Will create a significant detrimental impact upon field drainage

4. Cable depths too shallow

5. Significant detrimental impact upon livelihood of local farmers

6. Highway safety/access

7. Health implications from Electro Magnetic Fields (EMF's)

8. Close proximity of route to residential properties

9. Cable should be run along coast to a coastal sub-station, or run under the sea bed

10. Lack of consultation


6

14 July 2011

11. Overground excavations proposed where thought HDD would be employed

12. Compound location at Stibbard not discussed with landowners

13. Two stages of cable laying not acceptable. Cable laying should be completed at same time or at the very least ducting for all the phase two cabling should be trenched in same time as building phase 1.

14. Concerns over trenches remaining open for an excessive period of time

15. Cable route not what proposed or discussed with landowners

16. Concerns over locations of Cross bonding pits being located in fields

17. Bio security

18. Route cuts through heart of Kelling Estate

19. Impact on agriculture, tourism and shoots at Kelling Estate

20. Heat and radiation from underground cables

21. Additional cables to be added in years to come

22. Long term effect of large gaps in mature hedge lines

23. Detrimental impact on farming practices

24. Detrimental impact on crop production

25. Detrimental impact on footpaths

26. Detrimental impact on local businesses close to route

27. Route not sustainable

28. Unsuitable road network for traffic associated with cable route

29. Cable route should be realigned at Bale as too close to residential properties

30. Nothing in application to suggest alternative route considered

31. Financial implications to local farmers regarding productivity

32. Application is not precise in terms of type of electrical connection to be used

33. Inaccurate information provided regarding route, cable jointing bays and cross bonding pit locations

On the amended proposal four letters of objection have been received, raising the same issues as above and the following:

1. The cable route has not been realigned at Bale as suggested

2. No information submitted regarding the construction programme. Conditions should be imposed detailing when works can be undertaken to certain sensitive locations along the route

3. Increasing the length of the directional drilling site at Bayfield Estate will increase traffic movements associated with these works on a minor country road which is not acceptable.

4. The applicants totally fail to grasp any idea of how much this would impact on either farming operations or soil destruction and consequential problems

5. The application is at odds with the licence granted by Crown Estates

6. Alternative routes have been suggested to the applicants that are either shorter or have less environmental impact, but the applicants have refused to consider them.

7. The solution is to reject the plan.

8. The alternative for the applicants which is also very much in the National interest and Norfolk is the East Coast Transmission Route. It is envisaged that by 2020 this will develop into part of the European super grid.

As stated previously an Environmental Statement has been submitted in support of the application. A copy of the Non-Technical Summary is attached as Appendix 2 . A copy of the full document is available in the Members’ Room.

The applicants have submitted detailed responses to local residents', landowners'/tenants' and consultees' objections and concerns, with the aim of addressing the matters raised. These support the amended plans, as outlined above.

Copies of these letters can be viewed on the application file.


7

14 July 2011

An email has been received from an agent acting for a number of landowners objecting to the application. It states that it has been brought to their attention that the applicant has not been granted the licence from The Crown Estates which they state the applicants were reliant upon to allow them to undertake Phase 2 of the development. They go on to say that their clients have already expressed their concern about the second phase but now that the licence has not been granted they believe that this element of the application is now no longer applicable.

The applicants’ agent has provided a response to the comments made in the above paragraph which states that Warwick have long since viewed the Dudgeon area as well suited for offshore wind farms and believe that the area will accommodate up to

1400MW in due course. The current offshore applications cover Stage 1 of this development for up to 560MW. The UK continues to increase its targets for renewable energy and regular licensing 'rounds' from The Crown Estate have taken place, and more are expected in the future. Round 4 is already being discussed.

Warwick will apply for more offshore capacity for the Dudgeon area (Stage 2) whenever such a licensing opportunity arises and The Crown Estate and other stakeholders are already aware of, and are in broad agreement with these plans.

Whilst it hopes and expects that the Dudgeon extension will go ahead in due course it is not a certainty and the timetable is currently unclear although discussions on this subject are continuing. However, it is sensible and reasonable that the assessment of onshore elements of the Dudgeon project accommodate Stage 2 works to ensure that the maximum possible impact is fully assessed. The recent announcement of some project extensions known as Round 2.5 did not include any extensions off the Norfolk or Lincolnshire coasts although these are expected in due course as part of future initiatives. The new Coalition Government’s expressed interest in increasing

Renewable Energy targets in the near future may prompt a further review of the opportunities in this area.

An email has been received from The Crown Estate to clarify their position. This is regarding The Crown Estate's ownership and leasing position, the site capacity of the

Dudgeon Offshore Wind Project, Round 2 of the tendering process and position regarding the East Coast Transmission Network (ECTN) . The Crown Estate has provided clarification on these matters as they consider that the information submitted by the objectors is factually incorrect and potentially misleading. The Crown Estate confirms that they own virtually the entire seabed out to the 12 nautical mile (nm) territorial limit, including rights to explore and utilise the natural resources of the UK continental shelf. The Energy Act 2004 vested rights to The Crown Estate to lease the generation of renewable energy on the continental shelf. They have therefore offered areas of sea bed by competitive tender for the development of offshore wind farms in a series of leasing ‘Rounds’, most recently Round 3. The Dudgeon Offshore wind farm is situated on sea bed owned by The Crown Estate and was allocated in

2004 under the Round 2 offshore wind round. The agreed maximum installed generating capacity for the Dudgeon Offshore wind farm under The Crown Estate

Agreement for Lease is 560mw for Stage 1. The applicants are currently in discussion with The Crown Estate regarding Stage 2 of the development. However, The Crown

Estate has no set timetable for further offshore wind leasing rounds or tenders. Any opportunity for further allocation would involve a competitive tender process. With regard to Round 2 The Crown Estate has confirmed that this is an important part of the offshore wind programme and has certainly not been in any way superseded or replaced by Round 3. The Crown Estate are not aware of any spatial constraints which mean that the full generating capacity of 7.2GW awarded under Round 2 should not go ahead and The Crown Estate do not wish or need, as has been suggested by objectors, any of the 15 projects awarded to fail. The Crown Estate has


8

14 July 2011

confirmed that in relation to the ECTN that the development of such a network, if it ever occurs, is likely to be a lengthy process and it is considered unlikely that such a network would be in service in time to benefit the Dudgeon project. The Crown

Estate expect that the remaining Round 2 projects such as Dudgeon will connect to the onshore grid in the traditional ‘radial’ arrangement (a single wind farm connecting directly to the onshore grid) given the long timescales required for the development of an offshore network. A full copy of The Crown Estate’s response is contained in

Appendix 3.

A copy of an email from National Grid to one of the objectors has also been received which clarifies the position of National Grid in relation to the substation site; ECTN; and confirming that the proposal is technically possible and that normal farming operations can routinely and successfully be recommenced above buried cables. A full copy of the email is contained in Appendix 4.

Further information has been received from the applicant in response to a number of points of concern and objection raised at the previous meeting. These include the following:

•

A Technical Note in relation to the potential effects of EMF’s (Electro Magnetic

Fields), (letter dated 12 July 2010),

•

Clarification regarding applicants position in terms of Stages 1 and 2 of the proposal (letter dated 15 July 2010),

•

A response to comments made in relation to the ECTN (letters dated 19 July

2010 and 31 August 2010),

•

A response to comments from objectors regarding lack of consultation and impact upon on hedgerows and ecology, particularly on the Kelling Estate (letter dated

19 July 2010),

•

A response to comments regarding lack of consultation and consideration of the environmental impact (letter dated 20 July 2010),

•

A Technical Note in relation to construction work in the working corridor and reinstating the land (letter dated 20 July 2010).

•

A letter to the agent acting for Kelling Estate inviting further discussions to take place regarding directional drilling under some, if not all, of the key hedgerows within the Kelling Estate (letter dated 28 October 2010).

•

A response to comments made by an objector at the previous meeting regarding lack of consultation (letter dated 19 July 2010).

•

Clarification regarding the need for a 40 metre wide working corridor for the cable route (email dated 4 November 2010)

•

A response to comments from objectors regarding concerns over lack of information on technical issues in relation to the cables (Letter dated 15

November 2010)

All of the above information from the applicants is contained in full in Appendix 5 .

A further 16 letters and emails of objection have been received from two of the objectors following the receipt of the additional supporting information submitted by the applicants, re-iterating the objections already raised and making the following points:

1. A letter from the applicants regarding directional drilling to pass under hedgerows at Kelling Estate gives a false impression that discussions have taken place.

2. For at least half the route there are no, limited, or questionably obtained environmental survey findings.


9

14 July 2011

3. For the entire length of the route there are flaws in the way the data has been collected and presented.

4. Misleading information provided

5. No new information has been provided by the applicants it is the same as in

Environmental Statement

6. The EMF (Electro Magnetic Field) information only covers implanted medical devices and does not cover prolonged exposure and effect on paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

7. Failure to produce sufficient details

8. No major electricity generator would build a cable in this manner

9. No soil surveys carried out for any of the route

10. No advice sought from soil or geological experts

11. The Crown Estate has no intention of increasing the applicants licence from

560mw to 1400mw

12. The Crown Estate have awarded 32GW of licences in round 3 to proper electricity generating providers no speculators which is more than enough to meet the UK's renewable energy obligation needs in the future

13. The ECTN is making a lot of progress which both The Crown Estate and National

Grid are clear on.

14. The Council should insist Stage 2 is withdrawn

15. The Council has insufficient detail on which to make a decision

16. The applicants have not answered the Committee's questions of what other alternative routes / landfall / connections to the National Grid have been considered, as only refer to the ECTN

17. Establishing large-scale transmission infrastructure, rather than building additional single systems for individual projects (like Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm) is the 'best practice methodology' going forward.

18. An integrated approach could halve the number of onshore cable landing sites from 61 to 32. It would also cut the number of onshore AC cables by 77%.

19. This would slash the carbon footprint of onshore construction. There are 8,700

HGV vehicle movements proposed for Stage 1 alone. Stage 2 would be the same again.

20. There is no evidence that stage 2 will proceed.

21. The District Council's comments in the Committee report are not probing, challenging or of any length.

22. Query over whether fee is correct and how it was calculated

23. Officers' report is not long enough

24. No analysis of need of project

25. Route affects 151 hedgerows

Copies of these letters are attached as Appendix 6.

A detailed letter has been received from the applicants in response to these 16 additional letters of objection referred to above and is contained in full in Appendix 7.

A copy of correspondence between an objector and The Crown Estate has been received regarding the licence agreement and procedures between the applicant and

The Crown Estate and is contained in Appendix 8. The objector is querying The

Crown Estate’s position regarding an extension to the Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm

(Stage 2), the timetable for Stage 2, when the next ‘Round’ of leasing will be expected and position regarding the ECTN.

The Crown Estate confirms that an extension to the Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm would be considered as part of a formal competitive leasing tender round and assessed against the criteria of that round before any formal agreement is entered


10

14 July 2011

into. The Crown Estate currently has no clear timetable for further offshore wind farm allocations in the region but discussions are ongoing. They have made no public announcements about future leasing rounds. There is no Crown Estate plan or timetable for any future ‘Round 4’. The Crown Estate has confirmed that with regard to the ECTN that the development of such a network is likely to be a lengthy process and is considered highly unlikely that such a network would be in service in time to benefit the Dudgeon project.

A copy of an email from an objector to Natural England has also been received which seeks clarification from Natural England on the impact of the proposal and the impact that the Sheringham Shoal application had on the land during construction and loss of cropping years, depth of cables and adverse affect on soil structure, lack of surveys and if they have given consent for Stage 2. A full copy is contained in Appendix 9.

An email has been received from an objector raising concerns over what is considered to be a lack of information from the applicants on technical issues in relation to the buried depth of the cables, the impact this has on the operating temperatures of the cables and impact and effects this has on the overlying soil, which is central to the design of the cable system and routing. A full copy of the email is contained in Appendix 10.

A response to the above email has been received from the applicants confirming that they have commissioned one of the UK's leading electrical installation contractors, who has extensive experience of onshore electrical connections, including the most recent Sheringham Shoal project, to assess the required cable system. A full copy of this response is contained in Appendix 11.

An objection letter has been received from Keith Simpson MP.

A letter of support has been received from the Chief Executive of The County

Economic and Development Partnership.

A copy of the applicants independent Soil Consultants’ report from Dr Brighton of

Cranfield University is contained in Appendix 12.

A copy of the comments made by the District Council’s independent Soil Consultant

(Dick Thompson) is contained in Appendix 13.

A copy of the applicants’ response in relation to the points raised by the District

Council’s independent Soil Consultant is contained in Appendix 14.

The applicants have provided copies of three letters of support from local landowners, where the proposed cable route passes through land in their ownership.

Three further letters of objection have been received, two of which are from previous objectors, following the advertisement of the additional supporting information in relation to soil issues (for which see above), summarised as follows:

1. An objector has listed four publications that farmers are required to comply with in relation to soils or suffer financial penalties. It is suggested that the applicants should also comply with the requirements of these publications or higher standards or be made to suffer financial penalties.

2. A previous objector continues to object strongly to the unchanged route and width of working corridor in relation to their property at Folly Cottage, Bale.


11

14 July 2011

The soil information ignores the variation in soil types found across some fields.

3. A detailed letter of objection has been received in relation to the soil impact and states that they are not convinced by the manner in which the soil reports were carried out, no site inspections. A full copy of this letter is contained in

Appendix 15.

Two letters have been received seeking clarification from the applicants on a number of points including:

1. Satisfaction that there will be no unreasonable disruption to the Muckleburgh

Collection and its users which include RAF Neatishead and the University of

East Anglia, and that the airfield must be maintained at all times.

2. Clarification that the proposals by a landowner for deep rooted flora such as woodland, fruit bearing trees and shrubs, biomass coppicing and possibly human/animal burial will be precluded if planning permission were to be approved.

The applicants have responded to the above objections and representations. They confirm that the regulations referred to in relation to soils will be adhered to and that the highest possible standards will be applied, with the ultimate aim to ensure, through the full and proper implementation of a Soil Management Plan, that no adverse impact is caused. A change in route at Bale has been re-considered by the applicants, but in this instance the proposed route has been extensively assessed as the optimum route in terms of environmental impact The applicants advise that the variation in soil types has been taken into account and that prior to construction a detailed analysis of landowner specific soils and drainage issues will be completed through the creation of a bespoke Soil Management Plan undertaken by appropriate qualified soils expert and separate drainage consultant. With regard to comments made about disruption at the Muckleburgh Collection, the applicants have advised that these issues can be successfully covered through detailed planning and careful timing of operations. Normal farming operations and shallow rooted planting above the cables can be safely carried out. It will be in everyone’s interest to avoid more intrusive activities directly above high voltage cables.

With regard to the timing of the proposed development the applicants have confirmed that the Offshore consent from the DECC is expected later in 2011. This would allow

Stage 1 of buried cable route to be developed under the current programme which now envisages onshore cable construction work taking place mainly during 2013 and

2014 with some work in early 2015. This is later than envisaged due to the delays in the original programme for both offshore and onshore consents. The timing of Stage

2 is still uncertain, but given the current delays to Stage 1 it is still possible that the offshore programme would be a continuation from the Stage 1 works, in which case the applicants have confirmed that they would try to carry out as much of the onshore works as practicable for Stage 2 in parallel with the Stage 1 works. Discussions with

The Crown Estate are continuing. Should the two stages not overlap the applicants have confirmed that they will, as matte of practice, liaise with each landowner and agree on a programme for either full or partial reinstatement to meet their specific site requirements. In the event of a gap of more than 12 months arising between the completion of Stage 1 works and the commencement of the Stage 2 works then the applicants will undertake a full reinstatement programme and will accept a planning condition to this affect.

The Crown Estate has confirmed in an email that, following the applicants current timing for the proposed works to take place as above, even if an ECTN were to happen, and that is highly uncertain, it is considered to be inconceivable that it could


12

14 July 2011

be designed, consented, installed and operational within the above timeframe. This is due to the huge logistical and other challenges that would have to be overcome in order for an ECTN to become a reality. These include the need for Government,

National Grid, Ofgem and others to agree on its form and a means of delivery.

Inevitably there appears to be a requirement for legislative change and a mechanism for funding the many £billions required has still to be identified. The position of The

Crown Estate in relation to the ECTN has not altered from the previous responses given.

The National Grid has also confirmed by email that the revised programme for the timing of the proposed works as advised by the applicants does not alter the position of National Grid with regard to the integrated offshore network design as per their letter dated 8 th

March 2011, which is that the integrated offshore network is still at a very early stage and National Grid are not aware of any advanced plans which would include Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd. A key objective of an integrated design is not to delay projects and hence focus is on Round 3 developers who are at an early enough stage to be included without impact to timing. Clearly as integrated solutions are at such an early stage and not as yet formalised via the Industry codes it is possible for the focus or objective to change but the current view of the National Grid is that an integrated design will not impact on proposals by Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd to connect at Little Dunham.

Further detailed objections have been received in relation to impact upon soils and include comments regarding the need for a soil survey prior to the determination of the application, that there is currently a lack of detail and information regarding impact upon soils and that this matter has not been considered properly, and that both Soil

Consultants agree there is a lack of information in order to assess this matter. The objections go on to state that a full set of planning conditions should be prepared, it appears the applicant will provide all the detail after consent, so many assumptions have been made it is inevitable that the route will have to be changed, 40 year old pipeline installations still affect the land, unfair to compare a 40m wide working corridor and buried cable system installed in 2 stages over a 5 – 7 plus year period with a single buried gas pipeline. Copies of which are contained in Appendix 16.

The District Council’s Soil Consultant has been provided with copies of the recent objections received regarding impact upon soils, and has provided a detailed response contained in Appendix 17. The Soil Consultant advises that the recent objections do not raise any major new issues, and to a large extent are in agreement with his previous statement, apart from the views expressed that soil restoration is not achievable. The Soil Consultant has advised that a 40 year old pipeline installation is not necessarily a good guide to the outcome of land restoration in 2011 given the significant advances since that time in this matter. The challenges related to full and proper soil restoration are no different from that of a gas pipeline compared to a two phase installation, however undesirable and inconvenient that may be to land owners.

In his experience subsoil compaction during stripping, installation and restoration and the failure to alleviate it during aftercare are the common cause of poor restoration.

This highlights the need for strict controls in the Soil Management Plan.

Further email objections have been received re-iterating previous objections and including evidence around discussions the applicant has had with National Grid regarding the cable voltage and impact upon the environment, why the Infrastructure

Planning Commission (IPC) are not dealing with the application, National Grid’s right to intervene, and the submission of the application on a worst case scenario basis; the applicants have responded to these objections.


13

14 July 2011

CONSULTATIONS

All of the consultees listed below have been consulted on the original application.

Those whose particular interests are affected by the amended plans have been reconsulted.

Environmental Health - Comments on original application.

No objection. Environmental Protection is in agreement with the proposed working hours of 07:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday, and would like to see this conditioned.

However, it is also recommended that conditions are imposed regarding: no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays, and limited working on Saturdays from 08:00 to 13:00, unless agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing. Detailed noise mitigation is to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work as detailed in Section 12.5 of the Environmental Statement.

Dust control should be implemented in line with mitigation detailed in table 13.2 of the

Environmental Statement. An advisory note is also requested that if any potential contaminants are found that construction work should cease, the District Council's

Pollution Control Team should be contacted and contact details of the site manager and an out of hours contact are provided before works commence.

With regard to Electro Magnetic Fields (EMFs), the Environmental Protection Officer has had a discussion with the Health Protection Agency who are saying that subject to the cable being buried and constructed to UK standards and that it meets ICNIRP

(International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines on the frequencies then there is no proven health risk.

Comments on additional information submitted by applicant on EMFs - The level of magnetic field generated by the cable is well below the ICNIRP recommendations and is unlikely to pose any risk to public health based on the current guidance. The risk is minimal and therefore no signage would be necessary in this case.

Previously Environmental Health have stated that they do not have any concerns over technical issues in relation to the cable depth or design as there are no health impacts associated with this issue. Following the receipt of a letter received from an objector prior to the last meeting raising further EMF concerns Environmental Health have been reconsulted. A response has now been received which confirms that in view of the additional information received on the matter of EMF’s Environmental

Health have again spoken with the Health Protection Agency. As a result of this the previous comments still stand, as long as the cables are installed as per the details submitted and in line with ICNIRP and other UK guidelines in cable installation, then there are no Environmental Health concerns over this proposal.

County Council Highways - Original comments.

No objection. Conditions required including the submission of a Traffic Management

Plan prior to the commencement of development in order to clarify frequency of deliveries for construction traffic, location of compounds and the direct effect these will have on traffic movements, details of road crossings as the Highway Authority would not wish to see any road closures on the A or B road network.

No additional comments to make in relation to amended plans.

Environment Agency - Original comments.

We have inspected the application and supporting Environmental Statement (ES), as submitted, and have no objection to planning permission being granted for the proposed work. However, comments have been made in relation to the following, which have been summarised:


14

14 July 2011

Ecology - Decision to agree with Natural England an appropriate depth and lateral distance to perform the horizontal drilling of the cable under the Wensum Specific

Area of Conservation (SAC) is supported. A condition regarding mitigation measures in relation to the risk of bentonite being released into the rivers Wensum and Glaven as a result of the horizontal direction drilling is required. Mitigation measures for trenching the smaller watercourses in accordance with the ES is appropriate and must be adhered to. Mitigation measures for water voles, as detailed in the ES are adequate and must be adhered to. Whilst it is generally agreed that there is potentially no impact on otters during the works, we would request that the site compound is fenced securely to prevent inquisitive otters from coming to harm.

Contaminated land (risk to controlled waters) - We are pleased to see that careful consideration of mitigation measures has been made in order to try to preclude any detrimental impact on groundwater and surface water quality. An investigation into whether landfill gas is present at the historic landfill site should be made, and if so, the possibility of the trenching and cabling acting as a pathway for the gas should be engineered out via the design of the works. Having reviewed the ES we consider that a condition should be imposed on any planning permission granted regarding the submission of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination on the site. Without this condition the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and we would wish to object to the application.

A further condition is required regarding any unidentified contamination being found and development ceasing on the cable route until the applicant has obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for an amendment to the Method

Statement detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. An informative regarding relevant advice and guidance on land contamination investigations is required.

Pollution Control - A condition is required for a permanent scheme to install pollution prevention and control measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency.

Dewatering - Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior agreement of the Environment Agency is required for discharging dewatering water from any excavation or development to a surface watercourse. An informative note is required in relation to the prior written consent of the Environment Agency being given for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within nine metres of the top of the bank of any main river.

No further comments to make in relation to the amended plans.

Natural England - Original comments, no objection to landscape impact but some concerns in respect of protected species (see Appendix 18 ). Following the receipt of amended plans, have no objection and agree with the relocation of the satellite construction compound within the Muckleburgh Collection as having a reduced landscape and visual impact to the original location. The two new proposed HDD crossings are supported as likely to reduce impact on vulnerable soils. The reduction in the working width for the crossing of the River Stiffkey is welcomed. Natural

England have also confirmed that the Ecological Mitigation Summary Final Report submitted by the applicants addresses their concerns with regard to impact on protected species. Conditions in relation to pre-construction surveys, a mitigation scheme for protected species and soil treatment are required.


15

14 July 2011


No objection, subject to the development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application and the recommendations made by Mr Thompson (T R

E Thompson) and Dr Brighton (Cranfield University).

Natural England also advises that the applicant should be informed that should a significant period of time elapse between works commencing on Stages 1 and 2 of the development any relevant protected species surveys would need to be updated and, if applicable, an application made to Natural England for a European protected species licence.

Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - No objection subject to conditions (original proposal).

No objection to amended plans.

Government Office for East of England - No response.

English Heritage - Original comments summarised - Do not wish to comment in detail, but have some general observations to make. Because this is mainly a buried cable route, care has been taken to avoid direct impacts on Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Listed Buildings. English Heritage has no objection in principle to the proposed route and considers the main impact of this development therefore to be on undesignated historical assets and palaeoenvironmental remains. These issues can be dealt with by using a PPG 16 paragraph 30 condition. Norfolk Landscape

Archaeology should be consulted as a matter of course. We would urge you to address the above issues and recommend that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

Norfolk Coast Partnership - Original comments.

Made detailed comments relating to construction time, tree and hedgerow replacement and cycleways (see Appendix 19 ).

No response received on amended plans.

National Grid UK Transmission - No comments received

Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) - Following the receipt of comments from the applicant in relation to initial concerns raised by the CPRE, the CPRE feel that the points raised have been well addressed by the applicants. There are no outstanding matters on our side (original comments see Appendix 20 ). In relation to the amended plans CPRE welcome the changes made.

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection to the amended plans subject to the provision of suitable conditions to safeguard biodiversity and landscape. See Appendix 21 .

Additional comments following further objections:

Conservation, Design and Landscape (CDL) recognise the importance of hedgerows within the landscape as both an ecological and characteristic feature. CDL have secured through dialogue with the applicants additional HDD sections and the reduction of the working corridor to 20m at all hedgerow crossing points to help minimise the disruption to hedgerow features. However, it is recognised that a large number of hedgerows remain along the proposed cable route and will need to be breached. The applicants have suggested mitigation proposals for hedgerows which include detailed pre-construction surveys and the utilisation of gaps and existing access points where possible, and the full re-instatement of all hedgerows following


16

14 July 2011

construction with a suitable species mix (to be agreed with by the Local Planning

Authority in association with Natural England). Although the length of time of the hedgerow breach remains unknown at this stage (depending on whether Phase 2 of the project is implemented), it remains that all affected hedgerows will ultimately be re-instated and the integrity of the hedgerow sustained in the long term, this will result in no long term adverse impact on landscape character or ecological connectivity. In order to have some control over which sections of hedgerow will be removed and to allow micro-management of the cable route, CDL have recommended that a condition be attached to any planning permission requiring prior written approval from the LPA for all sections of hedgerow to be removed following the submission of the preconstruction hedgerow surveys. With the above mitigation and conditions in place,

CDL consider that there will be no significant adverse impact on hedgerows in the countryside.

Following concerns around timescales raised above further comments have now been received which are reported below:

The necessity to breach and remove hedgerows as part of the proposed development is unfortunate and will impact on both landscape character and ecology. However, mitigation has been sought to ensure that the Council retains an element of control over which hedgerows and how much hedgerow will be removed and when. For example, agreement has been reached to reduce the working corridor of the cable route at hedgerow crossing points to 20m and to utilise existing gaps where necessary. Further control will be afforded to the Council through the provision of a condition requiring the prior approval for all hedgerow breaches along the route, ensuring that any specific ecological or landscaping mitigation requirements are thought of well in advance of the removal and micro-management of the route can be co-ordinated as necessary. This will reduce the impact of the development on hedgerows to an acceptable level.

Concern was previously raised by CDL regarding the length of time required between the two stages of the proposed development and the uncertainty of what this period of time would be, resulting in differing impacts to ecology and landscape (specifically in relation to hedgerow removal) and difficulty in assessing the impact of the development. However it was felt that this could be managed through the provision of appropriate conditions. The addition of the most recent information pertaining to the re-reinstatement of hedgerows between Stage 1 and Stage 2 clarifies the situation with regard to the timing between Stage 1 and 2. In spite of this there remains a degree of uncertainty over the length of time construction will actually take place over the entire development. However, CDL remain of the opinion that appropriate mitigation can be put in place to minimise the impacts of the development on ecology and landscape which overall will result in a minor adverse impact and not sufficient grounds to warrant an objection to the application. This has been concluded as the ecological impacts of hedgerow removal may be mitigated through controlled removal of appropriate hedgerows and through temporary artificial replacement of ecological corridors where appropriate. Visual and landscape character impacts of hedgerow removal are viewed as a temporary negative impact which will not affect the long term character because appropriate re-instatement will take place, although it is recognised that there will be an adverse impact during construction.

The Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) section are satisfied that the provision of a condition requiring full reinstatement of hedgerows, should a gap of more than 12 months occur between Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the cable route construction, will contribute to the overall mitigation strategy to ensure that the development will not result in a significant impact on hedgerows, landscape character or ecology.


17

14 July 2011

Conservation Design & Landscape are satisfied that the Landscape & Visual Impact

Assessment undertaken by Royal Haskoning in conjunction with this application has been carried out in accordance with accepted guidelines, namely The Landscape

Institute/Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, ‘Guidelines for

Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment, 2002.

The impact of the development on components such as landscape character, national

& regional landscape designations and the historic environment has been properly assessed.

Following negotiations with the applicant and amendments to the scheme, such as additional HDD in Bayfield Park and amended compound locations, previous concerns have been adequately addressed. Conservation Design & Landscape are now satisfied that the imposition of relevant conditions will ensure appropriate mitigation measures which make sure that the long term visual impact of this development on the surrounding landscape is minimal.

Following advice from the applicants regarding the proposed timescales further comments have been received regarding the possible impact upon Listed Buildings as reported below:

The position remains that during the construction period there will be negative visual impact, albeit temporary, on the setting of nine Listed Buildings and two Scheduled

Ancient Monuments (SAM) which lie within the 500m wide study corridor. The altered timings of the work will not affect the long term impact of the work on these defined heritage assets which is assessed as ‘negligible’.

Delays in the construction schedules which cause the working corridor to remain open for longer periods will prolong the temporary negative visual impact which is not favourable. However, the mitigation measures put forward in Tables 8.2 & 8.4 of the

Environmental Statement relating to notifying HGV drivers, fenced construction close to SAMs and reduction of working widths in the vicinity of Listed Buildings will still be applicable and are adequate. The proposed reduction in working widths in particular areas close to Listed Buildings should be clearly defined at the outset and should form a condition of any permission.

The proposal to undertake a full reinstatement programme in the event of a gap of more than 12 months arising between the completion of Stage 1 and commencement of Stage 2 is appropriate and will provide sufficient mitigation for the potential prolonged temporary visual disruption to the defined heritage assets.

The ‘completion of Stage 1’ should be clearly defined, in order that the 12 month time period can be accurately assessed.

Comments following the re-consultation regarding soil impact:

Having assessed the comments received from the applicant, objectors and the

Council’s Soil Consultant, Mr D Thompson, in relation to the impact of the proposed cable route on soils, I cannot see any issues which could not be reasonably addressed through the provision of a condition following planning consent and recommendations of Mr Thompson and proceed with the recommendation of approval.


18

14 July 2011

Norfolk County Council (Public Rights of Way) - Original comments.

No objection. If planning permission granted the applicants should contact us at the earliest opportunity to ensure the mitigation measures are effectively carried forward.

Norfolk Badger Group - No comments received.

Norfolk Biological Records Centre - No comments received.

Norfolk Wildlife Trust - Original comments

No objection to the application in relation to ecology on condition that mitigation measures are put in place as recommended in the Environmental Statement. In particular, we support the proposal for direct drilling beneath the Wensum and Glaven rivers.

Awaiting comments on amended plans.

Norfolk County Council (Planning) - Original comments. Detailed comments in respect of lighting. See Appendix 22 .

In relation to amended plans no further comments to make.

Garden History Society – No comments received.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to

Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.

Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.

CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17

The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.

POLICIES

National Policy:

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS 1): Delivering Sustainable Development (2005)

Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS 5): Planning for the Historic Environment (2010)

Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS 7): Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

(2004)

Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS 9): Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

(2005)

Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG 13): Transport (2001)

Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22): Renewable Energy (2004)

Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS 23): Planning and Pollution Control (2004)

Planning Policy Guidance 24 (PPG 24): Planning and Noise (1994)

East of England Plan: The Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of

England (May 2008)

Policy ENV2: Landscape Conservation

Policy ENV3: Biodiversity and Earth Heritage

Policy ENV4: Agriculture, Land and Soils

Policy ENV6: The Historic Environment

Policy ENG7: Renewable Energy Targets


19

14 July 2011

The East of England Plan has been re-instated as part of the Development Plan for an unspecified period, and is therefore material to the determination of planning applications. The Secretary of State has re-affirmed his intention to abolish the

Regional Plan and maintains that his letters, confirming and re-affirming the intention to abolish are material to the determination of applications.

North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):

Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and distribution of development in the District).

Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with specific exceptions).

Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).

Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads

(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their setting).

Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character

(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape

Character Assessment).

Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can be permitted).

Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).

Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).

Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other valuable buildings).

Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature conservation sites).

Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).

Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).

Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).

MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Landscape and visual impact.

2. Impact on nature conservation.

3. Impact on archaeology and cultural heritage.

4. Impact on residential amenities

5. Impact on use of land by landowners, including soil issues

6. Highway safety.

7. Health concerns.

8. Principle of and need for development.

9. Consideration of Alternative Routes, East Coast Transmission Network (ECTN), and landfall point at Weybourne Hope.

10. Other Matters

11. Conclusion

APPRAISAL

Determination of this application was originally deferred at a meeting on 8 July 2010, following the resolution of the Committee to be minded to refuse the application on grounds of loss of amenity, possible risk to health, inadequate mitigation measures to address all of the environmental impacts which have been identified, significant adverse impact on the landscape and environment and long term adverse impact on a significant amount of agricultural land.


20

14 July 2011

The reason for deferral at that time was in order for Officers to obtain expert legal advice on the possible reasons given for refusal and also to explore with the applicants the possibility of an alternative offshore route. A written opinion was obtained from Counsel upon those possible reasons for refusal and the applicants’

Solicitors’ submissions, and this was reported as an item of Private Business to the

Development Control Committee on 21 October 2010. Copies of that report and appendices are attached for Members’ information (exempt Appendix 26 ).

The application was referred back to a meeting on 18 November 2010 where determination of this application was also deferred in view of 16 letters and emails of objection being received in the two days before the meeting. These submissions raised issues which required further time to consider, and required further expert and legal advice and responses from the applicant.

With regard to the main issues for consideration under this application each section as numbered above is addressed separately as follows:

1. Landscape and Visual Impact

Policies

The national and local planning policies relevant to this issue are PPS 1, PPS 7, PPS

22, Policies EN1, EN2, EN3, EN4 and EN7.

Consultee responses

No objections have been raised on these issues by the principal consultees, who are the District Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager, Natural

England, Norfolk Coast Partnership and Norfolk County Council.

Main issues raised by objectors

Objections have been raised on these issues on the grounds of the significant detrimental impact upon the landscape and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, as well as loss of hedgerows and the locations of the cross bonding pits and pillars.

Appraisal

The majority of the route is located through agricultural land. Parts of the cable route would pass through the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) for 8.11km between Weybourne and west of Letheringsett, and 2.79km of Undeveloped Coast from Weybourne to Salthouse Heath.

The cable route would cross 31 water courses, two of which are classified as main rivers by the Environment Agency, the River Glaven and the River Wensum. The cable route would also cross the River Stiffkey upstream of the point at which it is designated a main river.

PPS 1 seeks to promote and encourage rather than restrict the use of renewable resources. It states that significant adverse impacts on the environment should be avoided and alternative options which might reduce or eliminate those impacts pursued. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable planning authorities and developers should consider possible mitigation measures. Where adequate mitigation measures are not possible, compensatory measures may be appropriate.

In accordance with PPS 7 Local Planning Authorities should ensure that planning permission granted for major developments in designated areas should be carried out to a high environmental standard through the application of appropriate conditions where necessary. The development proposed is considered to be a ‘major’ planning application due to the length and width of the proposed cable trenches.


21

14 July 2011

With regard to major developments and nationally designated areas PPS 7 requires the need of the development to be assessed including any national considerations, as well as scope for developing elsewhere outside of any designated areas or meeting the need in some other way.

In accordance with PPS 7 it is considered that the need of the development has been demonstrated, including national considerations such as electricity being supplied by renewable energy sources in accordance with Government renewable energy targets set out in the Energy White Paper. In accordance with PPS 22 the aim of the

Government’s energy policy is to cut carbon dioxide emissions by some 60% by

2050. The Government targets already set are to generate 10% of UK electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. The White Paper sets aspirations to double this figure to 20% by 2020. In accordance with the companion guide to PPS 22 electricity suppliers are required to provide 15% of the supply by 2015 from renewable sources.

Clearly, the Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm would contribute to meeting these

Government renewable targets. A key principle of PPS 22 is that wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission. PPS 22 also states that Local Planning Authorities should not reject planning applications simply because the level of output is small. It is considered that the output from the proposed wind farm would make a valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy to meeting energy needs both locally and nationally in accordance with PPS 22.

With regard to developing elsewhere, Section 4 of the ES explains the site selection process, consideration of alternative routes and how the applicants arrived at the chosen route. It is considered that the applicants have satisfactorily demonstrated they have given consideration to a number of options and explained their reasoning for the chosen route selection.

In terms of meeting the need in some other way it has been suggested by objectors to the application that the need could be met through the ECTN. However, based on the information provided by The Crown Estate and National Grid regarding the current status of the ECTN it is not considered that the timescales involved in progressing the ECTN would coincide with the timescales for the Dudgeon Offshore

Wind Farm. The ECTN is not considered to be a feasible option at this time.

PPS 7 also requires examination of the detrimental effect on the environment, landscape and recreational opportunities and the extent to which they could be moderated.

In accordance with PPS 22, regarding international designated sites, (in this case the

Wensum Valley SAC), and national designations (in this case a SSSI and AONB) permission should only be granted once an assessment has shown that the integrity of the site would not be adversely affected and that the objectives of the designation of the area will not be compromised by the development. Any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated should be clearly out weighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits.

In accordance with PPS 22:’ A Companion Guide’ Local Planning Authorities should recognise that the landscape and visual effects are only one consideration to be taken into account and must be considered alongside the wider environmental, economic and social benefits arising from renewable energy projects.


22

14 July 2011

Policies EN1, EN2, EN3 and EN4 cover impacts upon the Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty, protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character,

Undeveloped Coast and design, which includes landscape matters.

In accordance with Policy EN7: Renewable Energy of the adopted North Norfolk Core

Strategy one of the criteria in assessing the acceptability of a proposal for associated infrastructure for a renewable energy project is whether there are any significant effects on the surrounding landscape, townscape, historical features/areas.

This policy also states that in areas of national importance (AONB’s, SSSI’s, National

Nature Reserves, Heritage Coast and Conservation Areas) large scale renewable energy infrastructure will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the designations are not compromised.

As explained in Section 3 of the ES and in a Technical Note provided by the applicants contained in Appendix 5 (letter dated 20 July 2010), the cables for both

Stages 1 and 2 would be installed by a method of open trenching. The cables would be laid in discrete sections with appropriate reinstatement as each section is completed so that sections will not be left open for the duration of the construction phase. The applicants anticipate that each section would be completed in approximately 6 months. Section 3 of the ES explains that the length of the sections of cables laid are typically 600 – 700m, but can vary up to 1000m. The trench for a section of cable would remain open until the cable ducts or, in the case of direct lay, the cables have been installed after which the trench would be back filled with subsoil. However, the topsoil would not normally be reinstated at this time. Based on normal working procedures and average weather conditions the applicants anticipate that a typical 600 – 700m single section of trench would take up to 7 working days to complete. Therefore, 14 days would be required to complete two trenches for each section. For reasons of health and safety and cable security the open trench would be reinstated as soon as possible. Earlier reinstatement may be undertaken where onward passage along the route is restricted by HDD operations, such as at river crossings where there is a natural barrier to vehicle movements, and if landowner restrictions impose a barrier along the route making onward passage impractical.

The applicants have confirmed that should Stages 1 and 2 not overlap then the applicants will, as a matter of practice, liaise with each landowner and agree a programme for either full or partial reinstatement to meet their specific site requirements. In the event of a gap of more than 12 months arising between the completion of Stage 1 and the commencement of Stage 2 then the applicants will undertake a full reinstatement programme. The applicants have confirmed that they will accept a planning condition to this effect. If this were the case and full reinstatement takes place the entire cable route would be dug up again once Stage 2 commences in order to complete the works required under Stage 2.

Section 3 of the ES states that the cables would be delivered in lengths and would need to jointed together on site. Where the cables are jointed together a process known as cross bonding would also be necessary. The cross bonding points would need to be permanently accessible for maintenance purposes. Where possible these points would be located at field boundaries. At each of the jointing locations a wider trench of 3m would be required. The cross bonding locations can be located 10m from the jointing locations and it is envisaged that the cross bonding equipment would be placed in buried pits with a surface manhole of approximately 1m by 1.3m in size.

It is accepted that this would have minimal visual impact. However, in certain places it may be necessary to install an above ground inspection pillar. The pillars would measure approximately 1.16m in height by 1.05m wide and 0.46m deep. Given that


23

14 July 2011

these locations would be located where possible adjacent to field boundaries it is considered that this would have minimal visual impact and minimise the impact on the use of the land. If not located to a field boundary then a buried pit with a manhole cover would be required as explained above which would have minimal visual impact.

Details of the underground cable layout and above ground features (such as cross bonding pits and pillars) can be conditioned to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. This can also be said of the detailed proposals for the reinstatement of cable trenches at the end of construction activities, including timescales. This would ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with methods the applicants are stating would be used, in order to minimise the visual impact upon the landscape.

In 7 locations in North Norfolk the applicants have assessed that open trenching would not be appropriate for environmental or technical reasons. These locations are as follows:

1. A149 (Kelling road crossing)

2. Hare flights (Woodland at Bayfield Park)

3. River Glaven (Bayfield Park)

4. A148 (Parr Plantation/disused railway road crossing at Thursford)

5. Wetland pasture land at Merryweather Farm between Fulmodeston and Stibbard

6. A1067 (Little Ryburgh road crossing)

7. River Wensum (Great Ryburgh)

In these locations a technique known as ‘horizontal directional drilling’ (HDD) would be used to install the cables to avoid or minimise any impact on surface features.

In response to concerns raised over the need for additional HDD sites the applicants have responded to these comments and the scheme has been amended to include additional HDD sites and extensions of sites in those locations where it is considered appropriate for environmental and technical reasons. This now includes the potential for directional drilling to take place on the Kelling Estate. Further information has been provided regarding HDD to pass under some, if not all, of the key hedgerows within the Kelling Estate. This was following concerns raised by the Estate in respect of the impact on mature and historic hedgerows where it is considered that the impact of the works will be more severe and reinstatement more difficult than in the case of an ordinary hedgerow. The applicants have written to the Estate Manager and their agent inviting discussions to take place which could (but would not necessarily) result in the retention of more hedgerows on the Kelling Estate. A copy of this letter dated

28 October 2010 is contained in Appendix 5 .

The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that the use of HDD would substantially reduce the landscape impact of the cable route construction on sensitive areas identified. One particular area of concern was that the applicants were not intending to directionally drill under the crossing at the River Stiffkey. However, following discussions with the applicant and the receipt of an Ecological Mitigation

Summary (EMS) the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is satisfied that an open trenching process at this point is acceptable given that it will result in less disturbance to the water meadows than if directionally drilled.

With regard to the HDD location at the River Wensum in Gt Ryburgh, due to the sensitive nature of this area concerns were again raised by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager that the HDD methodology proposed in the application was insufficient to protect the species and habitats linked to the river. This was acknowledged by the applicants following further discussions taking place on this


24

14 July 2011

matter. Therefore further ecological advice was attained and the applicants have confirmed that they will extend the drilling under the southern flood plain and road.

This will reduce the impact on the habitat. In addition to this Construction Method

Statements will be developed by the cable installation contractor (once appointed) to ensure appropriate methods are being used which will be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in association with Natural England prior to commencement of the development.

Section 7 of the ES assesses the impact of the proposed development on trees and hedgerows. The applicants have carried out an Arboricultural Survey in accordance with the British Standard (BS) 5837: 2005 ‘Trees in Relation to Construction

Recommendations’ along the cable route.

No trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) would be affected by the proposal. However, the ES advises that approximately 151 hedgerows will need to be removed within the working corridor, and that wherever practicable the cable route has been carefully designed to minimise ecological effects by utilising gaps (usually associated with existing farm access points) in these hedgerows. At nine of the hedgerow crossings the hedgerows would be avoided as a result of HDD operations, for instance at the River Glaven and River Wensum. Of the remaining 142 hedgerow crossings, removal of the hedgerow would be necessary.

This information has been assessed by consultees, who have raised no objections. In view of the further objections received recently in relation to this matter the

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has been re-consulted and has advised that the importance of hedgerows is recognised within the landscape as both an ecological and characteristic feature. The Conservation, Design and Landscape team have secured through dialogue with the applicants additional HDD sections and the reduction of the working corridor to 20m at all hedgerow crossing points to help minimise the disruption to hedgerow features. This is confirmed in the Ecological

Mitigation Summary (EMS).

However, it is recognised that a large number of hedgerows remain along the proposed cable route and would need to be breached. The applicants have suggested mitigation proposals for hedgerows which include detailed pre-construction surveys and the utilisation of gaps and existing access points where possible, and the full re-instatement of all hedgerows following construction with a suitable species mix

(to be agreed with by the Local Planning Authority in association with Natural

Landscape Manager regarding the length of time required between the two stages of the proposed development and the uncertainty of what this period of time would be, resulting in differing impacts to ecology and landscape (specifically in relation to hedgerow removal) and difficulty in assessing the impact of the development.

However it was felt that this could be managed through the provision of appropriate conditions. The addition of the most recent information pertaining to the rereinstatement of hedgerows between Stage 1 and Stage 2 clarifies the situation with regard to the timing between Stage 1 and 2. In spite of this there remains a degree of uncertainty over the length of time construction will actually take place over the entire development. However, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager remains of the opinion that appropriate mitigation can be put in place to minimise the impacts of the development on ecology and landscape which overall will result in a minor adverse impact and insufficient grounds to warrant an objection to the application.

This has been concluded as the ecological impacts of hedgerow removal may be mitigated through controlled removal of appropriate hedgerows and through temporary artificial replacement of ecological corridors where appropriate. Visual and landscape character impacts of hedgerow removal are viewed as a temporary negative impact which will not affect the long term character because appropriate re-


25

14 July 2011

instatement will take place, although it is recognised that there will be an adverse impact during construction.

The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is satisfied that the provision of a condition requiring full reinstatement of hedgerows, should a gap of more than 12 months occur between Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the cable route construction, will contribute to the overall mitigation strategy to ensure that the development will not result in a significant impact on hedgerows, landscape character or ecology.

It remains that all affected hedgerows would ultimately be re-instated and the integrity of the hedgerow sustained in the long term; this would result in no long term adverse impact on landscape character or ecological connectivity. In order to have some control over which sections of hedgerow would be removed and to allow close supervision of the cable route, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has recommended that a condition be attached to any planning permission requiring prior written approval from the Local Planning Authority for all sections of hedgerow to be removed following the submission of the pre-construction hedgerow surveys.

With the above mitigation and conditions in place, the Conservation, Design and

Landscape Manager considers that there would be no significant adverse impact on hedgerows in the countryside.

Three construction compound sites are proposed along the cable route in North

Norfolk, one main construction compound and two satellite compounds. Following discussions with landowners and consultees the three construction compound site locations have been amended. No objections have been received from the consultees in relation to these amendments. A Technical Note in relation to this matter has been provided clarifying some of the detail surrounding the type and nature of the compound construction. A copy is contained in Appendix 23. Whilst the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager advises that the compound design is utilitarian by nature, the scale of them is not considered to be beyond the operational requirements. In particular, one of the satellite compounds was originally shown to be located on land adjacent to the A149 coast road in a very prominent position within the landscape. However, following Officers concern over this location the applicants have agreed an alternative siting with the landowner, which will now be within the site of the Muckleburgh Collection in a much less intrusive location. The

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that this would reduce visual impact satisfactorily within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A condition regarding the micro-positioning of the compound sites would be required.

The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has confirmed that he is satisfied that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment undertaken by the agents in conjunction with this application has been carried out in accordance with accepted guidelines, namely The Landscape Institute/Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2002’.

The impact of the development on components such as landscape character, national and regional landscape designations has been properly assessed. Following negotiations with the applicant and amendments to the scheme, such as additional

HDD sites and amended compound locations, previous concerns have been adequately addressed. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is now satisfied that the imposition of relevant conditions would ensure appropriate mitigation measures which make sure that the long term visual impact of this development on the surrounding landscape is minimal.


26

14 July 2011

No objections from the technical consultees have been received in this respect or in relation to the impact of the route on these landscape designations.

The Committee will appreciate that as the completed cable route would be buried underground (apart from any cross bonding pillars that may be required) there would only be a temporary visual impact while the route is being constructed, and once constructed the land would be reinstated to its former condition. The only visible element left of the cable route would be at the cross bonding locations. It is therefore considered that the finished underground cable route would have a minimal visual and landscape impact.

It is therefore considered that through the imposition of appropriate conditions and the installation of the cables underground that the rural landscape character, national and local designated areas of importance would be preserved and visual impact would be minimised in accordance with the requirements of national and Development Plan policies.

2. Impact on Nature Conservation

Policies

The national and local planning policies relevant to this issue are PPS 9, PPS 22 and

Policies EN7 and EN9.

Consultee responses

No objections have been raised on this issue by the consultees, who are Natural

England, Environment Agency, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, the District Council’s

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and Norfolk County Council Planning.


Objections have been raised in relation to this issue on the grounds that for at least half of the route there are no, limited or questionably obtained environmental survey findings.

Appraisal

As well as the impact of the proposal upon Protected Species and European

Protected Species, part of the route runs through the Wensum Valley Special Area of

Conservation (SAC), and a SSSI 1km south east of Great Ryburgh.

In accordance with PPS 9 key principles include that local authorities should assess the potential to sustain and enhance the biodiversity and geological resource characteristics of their areas, and that planning decisions should aim to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. PPS 9 also requires that Local

Planning Authorities need to consider preventing, adequately mitigating against or compensating for any harm as a result of a development on these interests.

The PPS 9 Practice Guide states that it is often necessary to secure matters through the imposition of conditions and/or obligations addressing biodiversity and geological conservation issues in order to avoid any harm through appropriate mitigation.

In accordance with PPS 22, regarding international designated sites, (in this case the

Wensum Valley SAC), and national designations (in this case a SSSI and AONB) permission should only be granted once an assessment has shown that the integrity of the site would not be adversely affected and that the objectives of the designation of the area will not be compromised by the development. Any significant adverse


27

14 July 2011

effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated should be clearly out weighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits.

Policy EN7 states that in areas of national importance (which includes SSSI’s) large scale renewable energy infrastructure will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objective of the designations are not compromised.

Policy EN9 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy requires development proposals to protect biodiversity value of land and minimise fragmentation of habitats, maximise opportunities for restoration, enhancement and connection of natural habitats and incorporate beneficial biodiversity conservation features where appropriate.

Where a development would cause a direct or indirect adverse effect to protected species as well as nationally and other designated sites or areas the development will not be permitted unless the development cannot be located on an alternative site that would cause less or no harm, the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of natural habitats, and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided.

Whilst objections have been raised questioning the environmental survey findings in particular in relation to nature conservation, Section 7 of the ES clearly demonstrates that survey work has been carried out providing landowner access was obtained. This section of the ES contains details, tables, data and maps regarding international and national conservation sites, local conservation sites, Phase 1 Habitat Maps, Extended

Phase 1 Habitat Maps (Protected Species), Aquatic Habitats, and ponds with Great

Crested Newts presence. There are also extensive appendices containing the data recorded.

As stated in Section 7 of the ES the ecological data provided has been supplemented with data obtained through a desk based study, in consultation with Natural England,

Norfolk Wildlife Trust and the Environment Agency.

None of the consultees has raised an objection in relation to nature conservation and protected species and the information that has been submitted by the applicants. It is therefore considered that this information is acceptable.

The District Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has confirmed that an Ecological Mitigation Summary (EMS) dated 14 May 2010 has been received and provides the summary ecological mitigation measures to be implemented for the entire route. The EMS also details pre-construction survey work required which will in turn inform the detailed mitigation measures that will be contained in the

Environmental Action Plan (EAP) which will act as the working document for the construction of the route.

The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is satisfied that numerous ecological concerns raised previously have been addressed in the more comprehensive EMS. This includes the species specific concerns relating to water vole, great crested newts, bats, breeding birds and reptiles.

Given the additional information contained in the EMS pertaining to European

Protected Species the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that species will be protected from harm during the course of development and that adequate mitigation will be in place to ensure that the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status with their natural range.


28

14 July 2011

The EAP should be subject to a condition that this document is to be agreed by the

Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.

In accordance with Circular 06/2005 the District Council has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the special interest features of the SSSI are not adversely affected.

Furthermore, in accordance with the original consultation response received from

Natural England in relation to the River Wensum SAC subject to HDD being used at this point then an Appropriate Assessment in relation to the SAC is not required.

It is therefore considered on the basis of the information submitted and responses from the consultees that the impact of the development in relation to nature conservation is acceptable as appropriate mitigation measures have been provided and can be conditioned as part of any permission.

The application has been assessed in accordance with the District Council’s responsibilities as set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and

Section 48 (1) of the Habitat Regulations 1994, now superseded by Section 21 (1) of

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

The development is therefore considered to comply with national and Development

Plan policies.

3. Impact on archaeology and cultural heritage

Policies

The national and local planning policies relevant to this issue are PPS 5 and EN8.

Consultee responses

No objections have been raised on these issues by Norfolk Landscape Archaeology,

English Heritage, Norfolk County Council or the District Council’s Conservation,

Design and Landscape Manager.


No objections have been raised on these issues.

Appraisal

Parts of the cable route would pass through the Glaven Valley and Great Ryburgh

Conservation Areas, and the Bayfield Historic Park and Garden. It would also pass close to the Bale and Sharrington Conservation Areas and three Grade II listed buildings. The setting of six other Grade II listed buildings may also be affected for a temporary period until works are carried out, but to a lesser degree. It is considered that the altered timings of the work advised by the applicants will not affect the long term impact on these defined heritage assets. Mitigation measures put forward in

Tables 8.2 & 8.4 of the Environmental Statement relating to notifying HGV drivers, fenced construction close to SAMs and reduction of working widths in the vicinity of

Listed Buildings will still be applicable and are adequate. The proposed reduction in working widths in particular areas close to Listed Buildings should be clearly defined at the outset and should form a condition of any consent.

The proposal to undertake a full reinstatement programme in the event of a gap of more than 12 months arising between the completion of Stage 1 and commencement of Stage 2 is appropriate and will provide sufficient mitigation for the potential prolonged temporary visual disruption to the defined heritage assets .


29

14 July 2011

Section 8 of the ES submitted by the applicants assesses the proposed impact of the development on archaeological sites along the route as well as Conservation Areas and listed buildings. No objections have been raised by the technical consultees in relation to the information submitted and the impact of the route on these designations.

When considering applications that affect a heritage asset and its setting PPS 5 states that Local Planning Authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset.

Policy EN8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy requires development to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets and their settings. Provision should also be made for the preservation of important archaeological remains.

The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is satisfied that there will be no long term impact on views into or out of the Conservation Areas or on the setting of

Listed Buildings that may be affected by the route.

Norfolk Landscape Archaeology has not raised an objection to the development, subject to an appropriate condition regarding the submission of a programme of archaeological work. They welcome the amendment to reduce the width of the working corridor at a point adjacent to known archaeological remains. Conditions requiring archaeological mitigation remain valid.

It is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact upon any heritage assets or their setting including sites of archaeological interest.

Therefore, it is considered that on the basis of the information submitted and consultation responses received that the proposal would be in accordance with national and Development Plan policies.

4. Impact on residential amenities

Policies

The national and local planning policies relevant to this issue are PPG 24, Policies

EN4 and EN13.

Consultee responses

Environmental Health has raised no objections on this issue.


Objections have been received on this issue regarding the close proximity of the route to residential properties and the effects this would have on the residential amenities of the occupiers.

Appraisal of impact upon residential amenities

There are a number of locations along the cable route where the edge of the working corridor for the installation of the cable route would be in close proximity to residential properties. Two specific objections in relation to this matter have been received from residents in Bale and Croxton. In both of these cases the working corridor would be approximately 100m from their properties. There are, however, locations where the distance is less than this but no objections have been received.


30

14 July 2011

PPG24 provides guidance to local authorities on the use of their planning powers to minimise the adverse impact of noise. It outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise-sensitive developments and for those activities which generate noise.

Policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy states that development proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.

In accordance with Policy EN13 development proposals should minimise, and where possible, reduce all emissions and other forms of pollution including light and noise pollution and to ensure no deterioration in water quality.

Section 14 of the ES submitted by the applicant states that the cable route ‘has been designed to avoid housing as far as practicable and to minimise disturbance to the local community. However, in several locations the cable route does pass close to individual houses where this has been unavoidable’.

Whilst the cable route runs predominantly through agricultural land, given the length of the route through the District some parts of the route will be within close proximity to residential properties.

In the ES Sections 12 and 13 cover issues of noise, vibration, dust and air quality.

The District Councils Environmental Health Team has been consulted on these issues and is raising no objection, subject to the imposition of conditions in relation to the control of noise, hours of working, and dust.

Therefore, it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the privacy or amenities of the occupiers of residential properties along the route. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the works involved for the laying of the cables would be temporary and not permanent.

The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the relevant National and

Development Plan policies.

5. Impact on use of land by landowners, including soil issues

Policies

The national and local planning policies relevant to this issue are PPS 9, Policies EN9 and EN13.

Consultee responses

No objections have been raised from the statutory consultees on this issue, including

Natural England, the District Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape

Manager and the Council’s independent Soil Consultant.


Objections have been received in relation to this issue on the grounds that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on soil structure and field drainage causing significant damage, and that this would consequently have a significant detrimental effect on the livelihood of local farmers, their farming practices and crop production. Objections have also been received regarding the financial implications to local farmers regarding productivity and detrimental impact upon tourism and shoots, that no soil surveys carried out and no advice sought from soil or


31

14 July 2011

geological experts, cable depths too shallow and the impact this has on the operating temperatures, and bio-security.

Appraisal

With regard to soil structure Natural England has commented on this matter specifically and is encouraged that the working practices will follow the DEFRA Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites. A number of conditions are recommended in relation to soils. These comments and conditions of

Natural England are contained in Appendix 24 .

The District Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has considered the disturbance to soils that would occur as a result of the project, more specifically in relation to compaction and conditions of soils. The applicants have stated that soil condition assessments will be carried out prior to trenching and adherence to construction industry guidelines for soil quality and reinstatement will be applied as summarised in the EMS. On this basis the Conservation, Design and Landscape

Manager has raised no objection.

No objection has been raised by Natural England, or any other consultee in relation to the applicants proposals to address damage to the soil structure.

However, following the objections and concerns raised regarding the impact of the proposed development upon soil structure and possible associated detrimental impacts as described above under ‘main issues raised by objectors’ the District

Council has sought independent expert advice from a Soil Consultant. The District

Council’s Soil Consultant has been provided with the details of the application and copies of the objection letters received in relation to this matter.

The applicants have also appointed a soil consultant to provide further advice on the issues that have been raised. The applicants’ Soil Consultant has advised that ‘if the scheme is appropriately designed, constructed and reinstated to maintain future agricultural productivity there is no reason why this can not be achieved in this case.

Where it is not possible to fully reinstate soils to their former condition, there are examples of satisfactory remediation schemes that could be adopted’. He also advises on a number of issues that would need to be considered and assessed in detail to form part of a comprehensive construction and remediation scheme, including:

•

Drainage of the land above the cable installation

•

Appropriate mitigation measures to be considered in relation to compaction of infill material around cables and impact upon the normal root zone of crops

•

Burial depth of cables to minimise any root zone impacts

•

Measures needed to be put into place to minimise the loss of organic matter in the topsoil or subsequent re-instatement thereof

•

Careful consideration to haulage vehicle types and movements adjacent to excavation to avoid or minimise soil compaction, and

•

Potential heating effects from the cables.

The initial recommendation of the applicants’ Soil Consultant is that a detailed preconstruction soil and drainage survey be conducted along the cable route to a minimum depth of 1.5m, to ensure that effective mitigation measures can be designed. A full copy of the comments from the applicants’ Soil Consultant is contained in Appendix 12.


32

14 July 2011

The District Council’s independent Soil Consultant has responded to the comments made by the applicants’ Soil Consultant and provided comments in relation to this matter and on the basis of the information submitted with the application.

The District Council’s Soil Consultant refers to the fact that some of the objection letters received suggest that there is a perception ‘that complete restoration of the soil and its structure and fertility is unlikely if not impossible’. He goes on to say that

‘experience from the reinstatement of gas and oil pipelines elsewhere suggests that responsible and properly trained operators, proper and detail planning operations, timely earth movement and soil friendly stripping, storage and reinstatement methods can result in the full and effective restoration of soil, its structure and fertility’. He also advises that the pre- and post-installation soil surveys, mentioned by the applicants in response to objectors, is a recognised element of good practice.

The District Council’s Soil Consultant has advised of four matters that would assist the District Council in reaching an informed decision on this application. They are in relation to:

•

A more detailed and planned approach to soil handling and reinstatement along the route

•

Confirmation from the applicants that land reinstatement contractors with appropriate experience and qualifications (including relevant aspects of soil science) will be employed

•

For decisions on the final depth of installation at points along the route to be subject to agreement from the landowner or agent and the soil reinstatement and land drainage contractors

•

A detailed technical statement of effects on soil temperatures.

The District Council’s Soil Consultant does not consider that the advice given by the applicants Soil Consultant conflicts materially with his own analysis of the information submitted and that their recommendations are largely in agreement. One point that both consultants require further consideration to be given to is the burial depth of the cables. The applicants have advised that the depth of cover between the protective cable ties in the trenches and the surface within any agricultural land would be agreed with the landowner in order to allow sufficient depth for the land to be ploughed safely. A full copy of the District Council’s Soil Consultant’s comments is contained in Appendix 13 .

Whilst the District Council’s Soil Consultant had originally advised that he considered further investigations into the thermal regime of the buried cables was required and fundamental to the proposal he has considered the response from the applicants in relation to his original comments in a letter dated 7 February 2011 (see Appendix

13 ).

He considers that as the applicants are stating that they will submit a Soil

Management Plan and Construction Method Statement to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority to cover detailed site specific cable design, installation plans and soil management that he can see no reasonable objection from a soil impacts point of view to refuse permission. The Consultant has advised that as previously stated in his correspondence that more information is required to assess the real impact of the development. However, he considers that this can be appropriately mitigated through the submission and approval of a soil management plan. The District Council’s Soil Consultant has not therefore raised an objection to the proposal in relation to impacts upon soil structure and possible associated impacts subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including a soil management plan.


33

14 July 2011

It is therefore considered that the details and requirements of a Soil Management

Plan and Construction Method Statement can be agreed prior to the commencement of the development in writing by the Local Planning Authority in association with the

District Council’s Soil Consultant and relevant consultees. From the expert advice provided on this matter there is no reason to believe that the proposal would not result in the full and effective restoration of soil, its structure and fertility, subject to appropriate and responsible methods being used as proposed by the applicants. If it is not possible to reinstate fully soils to their former condition the applicants’ soil consultants have indicated that there are other satisfactory remediation schemes that could be adopted and will need to be addressed. Such details can be conditioned as part of any planning approval. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact upon the soil structure that can not be mitigated against or appropriate remediation methods imposed.

Objections have been raised by landowners regarding the impact of the proposal upon their livelihood and financial implications regarding productivity and possible detrimental impact upon tourism and shoots. The financial compensation proposed by the applicants on these issues is a civil matter and not a planning matter. However, the applicants have stated that the landowners would be fully compensated for the loss of agricultural productivity during the construction period, in accordance with normal principles applying to such activities. The applicants have advised that they will carry out pre and post construction agricultural surveys to inform any further compensation claims relating to crop yields.

With regard to an objection raised in relation to bio-security the applicants have provided a detailed response directly to the objector. The applicants have stated that bio-security will be addressed during the detailed design phase of the project prior to the commencement of any development taking place. Detailed Method Statements will be produced and cable installation contractors will be required to comply with these. The applicants will require the cable installation contractors to adopt as an absolute minimum the Defra Guidance on bio-security. In addition to this the applicants will request that landowners and tenant farmers who will be affected by the construction works (i.e. land crossed by the cable trenches) liaise with the appointed land agent, to detail any specific bio security measures applicable to their farm. All personnel requiring access to the cable corridor working area will be briefed on the issue of bio security and will be required to follow the guidelines produced by Defra and any additional voluntary guidelines agreed with specific landowners.

It is therefore considered that the information provided by the applicants regarding how they will address concerns of bio security is acceptable, subject to Defra guidelines being followed and agreed with specific landowners.

In accordance with Policies EN9 and EN13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core

Strategy development proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity or geodiversity interests will be supported in principle, and be permitted where, individually or cumulatively, there are no unacceptable impacts upon, amongst other matters, land quality and condition. It is therefore considered, based on the information provided in relation to soil impact, that appropriate mitigation and remediation measures would seek to conserve the geodiversity interests along the cable route, and would not have an unacceptable impact on land quality or condition.

PPS 9 requires decisions on biodiversity and geological conservation to be fully considered. Decisions should be based upon up to date information about the environmental characteristics of their areas and include relevant biodiversity and geological resources of the area. Decisions should aim to maintain, enhance, restore


34

14 July 2011

or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests.

It is considered that in view of the Council’s Soil Consultant’s advice given that

‘experience from the reinstatement of gas and oil pipelines elsewhere suggests that responsible and properly trained operators, proper and detail planning operations, timely earth movement and soil friendly stripping, storage and reinstatement methods can result in the full and effective restoration of soil, its structure and fertility’ and that subject to conditions imposed on any approval that cover detailed site specific cable design, installation plans and soil management that there are no reasonable objections from a soil impacts point of view so as to justify refusal of permission.

Therefore, it is considered that on the basis of the information submitted, consultation responses received, and independent Soil Consultant advice that the proposal would be in accordance with national and Development Plan policies.

6. Highway safety

Policies

The national and local planning policies relevant to this issue are PPG 13 and Policy

CT5.

Consultee responses

The County Council Highway Authority and Public Rights of Way Officer have raised no objection to the proposal.


Objections have been received in relation to highway safety and access issues, impact upon Public Rights of Way as well as objections over the unsustainable road network for such a development.

Appraisal on Highway Safety

The objectives of PPG 13 are to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level and to promote more sustainable transport choices both for carrying people and for moving freight.

Policy CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy requires development proposals to address the transport implications of the development. The proposal should be capable of being served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity and character of a locality.

The cable route would cross the public highway in 35 locations, 20 in North Norfolk.

Depending on the width of the roads, either a full or partial closure would be required.

The cables would be laid via ducts at the road crossing points and the working width reduced to approximately 20m. Temporary closures and diversions of public footpaths would also be necessary.

The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of a condition requesting the submission of a Traffic Management Plan for the route.

In view of the fact that there is no Highway Authority objection to this application it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of highway safety and impact upon the road network subject to compliance with the conditions requested.


35

14 July 2011

The Public Rights of Way Officer (PROW) at Norfolk County Council confirms that the

ES is extensive and appears to adequately address any Public Right of Way issues. If planning permission were to be granted the applicants should contact the PROW at the County Council at the earliest opportunity to ensure the mitigation measures are carried forward. PROW have advised that there appears to be some inaccuracies regarding classification of rights of way, byways and footpaths, but that this matter can be addressed if and when planning permission has been granted and PROW are contacted to take forward mitigation measures.

The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the relevant national and


7. Health concerns

Policies

The local planning policy relevant to this issue is Policy EN13.

Consultee responses

No objections have been received from consultees on this issue.


Objections have been received in relation to this issue on concerns over health implications from Electro Magnetic Fields (EMF’S).

Appraisal on Health Concerns

Policy EN13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy requires developments to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable impacts on a number of criteria in relation to pollution including the health and safety of the public.

With regard to the concerns raised over the possible health risks, whilst such concerns can be a material planning consideration Section 3 of the Environmental

Statement states that underground cables, which have grounded armouring

(shielding), as opposed to overhead power lines, do not produce any external electric fields. The magnetic fields produced at ground level directly above an electricity cable would be within World Health Organisation guidelines and less than the natural background EMF produced by the Earth's magnetic field. These levels rapidly decrease within 5m of the cable centre line.

The Committee will note that Environmental Health has discussed the issue of EMF's and their potential health risks with the Health Protection Agency. Further information has been provided by the applicants on this matter, which is contained in Appendix 5

(letter and Technical Note dated 12 July 2010), based on the information provided by the applicant Environmental Health considers the risk to public health to be minimal and have not therefore raised an objection. A further letter of objection has been received on this matter and is contained in Appendix 6 (letter dated 17 November

2010). A response has been received from the applicants in relation to this matter and states that the potential health risks from EMF's have been examined by the

District Council's Environmental Protection Officer who does not consider there to be a proven health risk.

With regard to possible fears of local residents as to potential health hazards from

EMF’s and whether this can be considered as a material consideration this matter is covered in PPG 8. Whilst this National Policy document is in relation to telecommunications the principles regarding EMF’s is considered to be the same.


36

14 July 2011

PPG 8 states that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining planning applications, but it is for the LPA to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case. PPG 8 also states that it is the Government’s firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains the Government’s responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government’s view, if a proposed ‘mobile phone base station’ meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a Local Planning Authority in processing an application for planning permission to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.

Environmental Health have confirmed that following further representations in relation to EMF’s that they have again discussed this matter with the Health Protection

Agency. As a result of this the previous comments of Environmental Health still stand, as long as the cables are installed as per the details submitted and in line with

ICNIRP and other UK guidelines in cable installation then there are no environmental concerns over this proposal.

It is not therefore considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the health and safety of the public. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with Development Plan policy on this matter.

8. Principle of and need for development.

Policies

The national and local planning policies relevant to this issue are PPS 1, PPS 22,

Policies SS1, SS2, SS4 and EN7.

Consulted responses

No objections have been raised from the statutory consultees on this issue.


Objections have been raised on this issue and have questioned the need for the development when permission has not yet been granted for the offshore wind farm itself, the need for two stages of development as no further licence has yet been granted by The Crown Estate for stage 2.

Appraisal of Principle of Development

In accordance with PPS 22: Renewable Energy Local Planning Authorities are encouraged to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy resources.

In accordance with Policies SS1 and SS2 of the Core Strategy, renewable energy projects are permitted within the Countryside policy area. The principle of this application in terms of the provision of associated infrastructure in relation to a renewable energy project is therefore acceptable, and in accordance with both local and national policy.

However, in accordance with Policies SS4 and EN7 the applicant is required to demonstrate that any impacts on amenity, wildlife and landscape are acceptable, and that there would not be significant adverse affects on the surrounding landscape, townscape or historical features/areas, residential amenity, highway safety, or designated nature conservation or biodiversity considerations.


37

14 July 2011

A key consideration is therefore whether the impacts of such a proposal would be so great as to warrant refusal of planning permission having regard to the national and local policy position and the principle of encouraging renewable energy projects.

The application has been considered in accordance with Sec 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (The 2004 Act), and is considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan.

Appraisal of need

In accordance with the supplement to PPS 1 covering Planning and Climate Change paragraph 19 states that Local Planning Authorities should promote and encourage renewable energy and low carbon energy generation. In particular, in paragraph 20 it states that Local Planning Authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy and its distribution nor question the energy justification for why a proposal for such a development must be sited in a particular location.

As addressed in PPS 22 the aim of the Government’s energy policy, as set out in the energy White Paper, is to reduce Co2 emissions by 60% by 2050. To contribute to this reduction the Government set targets to generate 10% of all UK electricity from renewable sources by 2010. The Energy White Paper doubles these figures to 20% by 2020. The renewables obligation was extended by the Government so that in addition to this electricity suppliers are required to provide 15% of the supply by 2015 from renewable sources.

Clearly, the Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm would contribute to meeting these

Government renewable targets.

A key principle of PPS 22 is that wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission. PPS 22 also states that Local

Planning Authorities should not reject planning applications simply because the level of output is small. It is considered that the output from the proposed wind farm would make a valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy to meeting energy needs both locally and nationally in accordance with PPS 22.

However, North Norfolk District Council is not the determining authority for the

Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm proposal. As explained in “The Application” section of this report that is for consideration by the Department of Energy and Climate Change

(DECC). At the time of writing this report a decision on the Offshore Wind Farm had not yet been made by the DECC. Whilst there is currently no approved Offshore Wind

Farm this does not prevent the District Council from considering this application for the underground buried electrical cable in association with the proposed wind farm.

As explained in “The Application” section of this report the current application for the underground buried electrical cable covers two stages. Stage 1 is for the cabling in relation to the current wind farm application being considered by the DECC. Stage 2 is for an extension to the wind farm, if approved. However, no application has been made to the DECC for Stage 2 at this time as The Crown Estate (owners of the seabed) do not currently have a set timetable for further offshore wind leasing rounds, commonly referred to as tenders, in the region. The Crown Estate offers areas of the sea bed by competitive tender for the development of offshore wind farms in a series of leasing ‘Rounds’. Most recently Round 3 awards were made in December 2009.

This is confirmed in an email from The Crown Estate to the Case Officer dated 17

December 2010.


38

14 July 2011

However, The Crown Estate does confirm in that email that it is continuing to discuss

Stage 2 with the applicants, but that any opportunity for further allocation would involve a competitive tender process. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the applicants would be awarded the tender. The email referred to from The Crown

Estate is contained in Appendix 3 .

For clarification the site of the Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm currently being considered by the DECC was allocated in 2004 under the Round 2 offshore wind leasing round.

As confirmed by The Crown Estate Round 2 has not been superseded by the recent

Round 3 allocations. It is still considered to be an important part of The Crown Estate offshore wind farm programme. The Crown Estate believes that Round 2 offshore wind projects play an important part of meeting Government and EU renewable energy targets.

Contrary to the opinions expressed by some of the objectors The Crown Estate is not aware of any spatial constraints that mean the full generating capacity of 7.2GW awarded under Round 2 should not go ahead. The Crown Estate does not wish, or need any of the 15 projects awarded to fail.

Therefore, whilst the proposed wind farm in relation to Stage 2 does not yet have an area of seabed allocated or licence granted this does not mean that the District

Council cannot consider any works required in association with it. The issues raised over the licence agreement and procedures between the applicants and The Crown

Estate are not considered to be material to the determination of this application.

Whether the relevant licence agreements are in place does not prevent the District

Council from assessing and determining the application.

As confirmed by The Crown Estate it is in discussion with the applicants on this matter and this does not rule out any future expansion. Whilst there is no guarantee that the applicants would be awarded the lease following a tender process, the works required can be considered and again a Grampian condition imposed regarding

Stage 2 that no development is to commence unless or until such time as permission for the wind farm has been granted.

It is therefore considered that on the basis of the information submitted that the principle of and the need for the development is in accordance with National and


9. Consideration of Alternative Routes, East Coast Transmission Network (ECTN), and landfall point at Weybourne Hope.

Policies

The national and local planning policies relevant to this issue are PPS 22, Policies

SS1, SS2, SS4, EN1, EN3 and EN7.

Consultee responses

No objections have been raised from the statutory consultees on this issue.


Objections have been raised on this issue on the grounds that no information has been provided on alternative routes considered, that an alternative route such as the


39

14 July 2011

ECTN should be used and the need for the landfall point to be located at Weybourne

Hope.

Appraisal on alternative routes, ECTN and landfall point

Paragraph 20 of the supplement to PPS 1 covering Planning and Climate Change states that Local Planning Authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy and its distribution nor question the energy justification for why a proposal for such a development must be sited in a particular location.

In accordance with PPS 22 renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily.

PPS 22 also states that Local Planning Authorities should recognise the locational requirements of renewable energy sources.

As explained under the section in this report covering issue number eight, the proposal provides for renewable energy which is supported in Policies SS1 and SS2.

Part of the cable route would be located within an area designated as Undeveloped

Coast under Policy EN3 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. In such a location development proposals need to demonstrate that a coastal location is required and that such a proposal will not be significantly detrimental to the open coastal character. Clearly, this proposed development is to provide the infrastructure for an Offshore Wind Farm, which means the cabling is required to come ashore. A coastal location is therefore necessary in order for this to happen. Policy EN3 does not require justification of the precise coastal location, and it is not considered that the proposal would be significantly detrimental to the open coastal character.

In accordance with Policies SS4 and EN7 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy renewable energy proposals are supported providing it can be demonstrated that the impacts of such a development are acceptable without creating a significant adverse impact.

Therefore, with regard to the route chosen for the cabling by the applicants, Section 4 of the ES explains the site selection process, consideration of alternatives and how the applicants arrived at the chosen route. The top rated sites for the sub-station and the identification of route corridors for the cabling are identified and annotated maps are provided.

As stated by the applicants in Section 4 of the ES “there are countless possible route options that could have been selected”. It is agreed that this is the case. However, it is also considered that the applicants have satisfactorily demonstrated that they have given consideration to a number of options and explained their reasoning for the chosen route selection. It is not considered that it can be claimed that alternative routes have not been properly considered.

With regard to the ECTN the Committee will note that in response to the possibility of an alternative offshore route being used the applicants have provided a response in their correspondence dated 19 July 2010 and 31 August 2010 contained in Appendix

5 . This also includes a letter from The Crown Estate who commissioned the East

Coast Transmission Network Technical Feasibility Study during 2007. The Crown

Estate confirms that the concept of such a transmission network remains embryonic, and that "should such a network ever be progressed, given the long timescales required for the planning, procurement and construction of the scheme we consider it unlikely that it would be in service in time to benefit the Dudgeon project".


40

14 July 2011

A number of letters of objection have made reference to the possibility of the applicants using the ECTN. However, the District Council has received an email from

The Crown Estates clarifying its position with regard to these matters . The Crown

Estate has confirmed that in relation to the ECTN that the development of such a network, if it ever occurs, is likely to be a lengthy process and it is considered unlikely that such a network would be in service in time to benefit the Dudgeon project. The

Crown Estate expect that the remaining Round 2 projects such as Dudgeon will connect to the onshore grid in the traditional ‘radial’ arrangement (a single wind farm connecting directly to the onshore grid) given the long timescales required for the development of an offshore network. Based on the information provided by The

Crown Estate on this matter it is not considered that the ECTN is a feasible option at this time. A full copy of the email is contained in Appendix 3 .

National Grid has also confirmed its position in an email to one of the objectors which is contained in Appendix 4 .

The National Grid “are not aware of any advanced plans for an east coast offshore transmission network in the area”. They advise that “some feasibility studies have been carried out historically”, but that “all current wind farm proposals so far involve radial connections from individual offshore wind projects to the national electricity transmission system”.

In view of the information provided by The Crown Estate and National Grid regarding the current status of the ECTN it is not considered that the timescales involved in progressing the ECTN would coincide with timescales for the Dudgeon Offshore Wind

Farm. Whilst the applicants had planned for Stage 1 of the onshore works to be undertaken between 2011 - 2013 and Stage 2 between 2013 – 2015, due to delays in obtaining the relevant consents these timescales have now altered. The applicants now envisage Stage 1 taking place mainly during 2013 and 2014 with some work in early 2015. The Stage 2 timing is still uncertain. However, despite this change to the timescales The Crown Estate has confirmed that their position remains unchanged that it is not considered the ECTN could be designed, consented, installed and operational within the new time frame proposed by the applicants. National Grid have also confirmed that their position with regard to ECTN has not altered since their letter dated 8 March 2011. Copies of the letter from the applicants on timescales and the emails from The Crown Estate and National Grid are contained in Appendices 1 and 25.

It is not therefore considered that the use of the ECTN would be appropriate for this particular proposal at this time. It is considered that the applicants have provided the relevant information required to demonstrate that alternative routes have been considered and that the ECTN is not a feasible option at this time.

With regard to the need for the landfall to be at Weybourne Hope, the Landfall point of the cable route forms part of the Offshore Wind Farm application currently being considered by the DECC However, the applicants agent has provided clarification for information as to why Weybourne Hope was selected by the applicants.

The agent has advised that the general location of Weybourne was selected for the cable landfall (following the review of a number of alternatives) in order to avoid areas with major environmental designations along much of the north Norfolk coast.

Weybourne Hope on the north Norfolk coast was identified as the preferred landfall location due to its close proximity to the Dudgeon site and the likely connection point to the electricity transmission network.

The south-eastern extremity of the search area was determined by the gas pipelines entering the distribution station at Bacton. The coastline is typically fronted by cliffs


41

14 July 2011

and towards the west, as the cliffs dissipate, becomes highly sensitive and is heavily protected for its importance to nature conservation under United Kingdom, European

Union and international legislation. The Wash also has similar levels of nature conservation protection and other potential landfalls further afield were ruled out because of the increased electrical losses that would be associated with very long cable routes. Therefore, potential landfall sites are very limited and, following site visits, background research and consultation with stakeholders, the only feasible option was identified as being along the section of coast directly north of Weybourne.

As the actual detail of the landfall point does not form part of this application it is for the DECC to assess the acceptability. Clearly, the landfall point does affect where the cable would run to reach the proposed sub-station location. However, the above comments from the agent explain why Weybourne Hope was chosen. No consultee raised any issues or objections in relation to this matter.

For the reasons explained above it is considered that the applicants have satisfactorily demonstrated that they have given consideration to a number of alternative route options and that the ECTN is not a feasible option. Officers accept the explanation given by the applicants for the landfall point chosen as it avoids major environmental designations along the North Norfolk Coast, the topography is appropriate as it is low lying and it is not in close proximity to residential properties. It is considered that the proposal in relation to these matters is in accordance with national and Development Plan policies.

10. Other Matters


Objections with regard to other matters that have not been covered above have been received and include the following:

•

AC or DC connection

•

Ducted/not

•

Need for 40m wide working corridor

•

Flaws in data collection, as well as no, limited, or questionably obtained environmental surveys and failure by applicants to provide sufficient detail

•

Lack of consultation by applicants

AC/DC Connection

The application section of this report contains details of the description of the development proposed. This section of the report also clarifies the type of electrical connection that the applicants have based the submission of this application upon, which is an AC connection as this is the worst case scenario. However, this section of the report also explains what is required with a DC connection and the ES covers both an AC and DC connection being used.

Ducted/not ducted cables

The applicants have not yet confirmed whether the cables would be ducted or directly laid along the cable route, apart from at HDD sections and under road crossing points where the cabling would need to be ducted to allow for future replacement without the need to disturb the highway should a cable section need repairing. The applicants have advised that a decision as to whether a ducted system would be used will be taken at a later date and is dependent on the contractors appointed to carry out the work. The ES considers both possibilities. However, it is considered that this matter can be addressed by a condition covering the detailed design of the cable route, which would need to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning


42

14 July 2011

Authority prior to the commencement of development. It should be noted that no objections have been raised by the consultees in relation to this matter.

Need for 40m wide working corridor

The requirement of a 40m wide working corridor has been questioned, particularly as the applicants have advised that in some areas the width can be reduced to 20m.

Further details were requested from the applicants as to why the working corridor is required to be 40m wide, and why in only some areas it can be reduced to 20m and not others. The applicants have provided a response to this in an email dated 4

November 2010 which is contained in Appendix 5 . The applicants have confirmed that they have been advised by specialist cable installation contractors that a 40 metre working corridor is required for the majority of the route in order to meet best practice requirements for careful storage and adequate separation of topsoil and subsoil excavated from the cable trench. It is possible to reduce the working width to approximately 20 metres in limited stretches, where required, by not storing topsoil or subsoil/imported material within that particular section. This would only be carried out where necessary, such as hedgerow crossings or sensitive pinch points, as it would reduce the rate of construction.

Flaws in data

With regard to the objections raised regarding the suggested flaws in data, questionably obtained environmental surveys and failure of the applicants to provide sufficient details, these matters have been partially addressed under the main issue numbers 3 and 4. However, for clarification extensive ecological surveys and data have been collected where the applicants have been able to obtain landowner consent. Ecological data has also been supplemented with data obtained through a desk based study, in consultation with Natural England, Norfolk Wildlife Trust and the

Environment Agency amongst others.

None of the consultees has questioned the surveys and data submitted on these issues. The information collected has informed the consultees on what if any conditions would be required if planning permission were to be granted. When required the applicants have also provided additional supporting information and in some cases this has re-iterated the information submitted in the ES. However, it is considered that this merely demonstrates that the information submitted has covered any issues raised by consultees. If additional information not covered by the ES has been required then the applicants have provided this information. The applicants have also provided detailed responses to consultees where necessary and objectors.

It is not therefore considered that the applicants have provided insufficient information. The information submitted is considered to be acceptable.

Lack of consultation

The issue of lack of consultation has been raised by some of the objectors. However, the applicants have responded directly to the objectors on these concerns on a number of occasions. The applicants have provided some additional information regarding this issue in a letter contained in Appendix 7 . The applicants have carried out public exhibitions in relation to the proposal in November 2009 prior to the submission of this planning application. Site notices were first erected in January

2010 to advertise the application. The amended details submitted were re-advertised by way of site notices along the route in May 2010. It is therefore considered that local residents have had a significant consultation period and extensive time in which to make representations.

It is therefore considered that the other matters raised have been satisfactorily addressed.


43

14 July 2011

11. Conclusion

Although the proposal is a significant development in terms of the length of the cable route through the District it is considered that the impact of this proposal would be largely short-term during the construction phase. Once constructed the development would have minimal impact. It is considered that appropriate mitigation and remediation measures would be provided, and these can be required by conditions imposed. The Committee will note from the report that no objections have been received from the technical consultees, and the imposition of relevant conditions requested by the consultees the proposal is considered to be acceptable and to accord with national and Development Plan policies, and determination is in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approval, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, incorporating those required by consultees, and including the following:

Working hours, noise mitigation, dust control, Traffic Management Plan, site investigation into contaminants, contamination mitigation and pollution control, pre-construction surveys, mitigation scheme for protected species, submission of a programme of archaeological work, hedgerow removal and reinstatement, phasing of cable installation, details of underground cable layout, positioning of cross bonding pits and pillars, proposals for reinstatement of cable trenches at the end of construction activities including timescales, preventing the commencement of the development unless or until the wind farm is approved including that proposed under Stage 2, Construction Method

Statements, micro-positioning of compounds, Environmental Action Plan, submission and approval of a Soil Management Plan to cover detailed site specific cable design, installation plans and soil management.


44

14 July 2011

OFFICERS’ REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 14 JULY 2011

Related documents

Products

Support

OFFICERS’ REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 14 JULY 2011

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib